So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News2 mins ago
3Rd Test, The Ashes: Old Trafford
142 Answers
Australia won the toss and chose to bat, going along swimmingly at 29 without loss after half an hour.
Not used to this(Aussie openers getting a good start) and generally expect a wicket every 30-40 minutes.
Hopefully a breakthrough is not far away....
Not used to this(Aussie openers getting a good start) and generally expect a wicket every 30-40 minutes.
Hopefully a breakthrough is not far away....
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The terms of DRS state that it is not there to say whether the batsman is out or not, but whether there is enough cause to overturn the decision. Hence "Umpire's call", where the decision, right or wrong, was fair on the evidence within tolerances. It is a very subtle distinction, but critical when considering many of the decisions in this series
Yes, but half the ball isn't a "fine margin". Hawkeye ball-tracking technology is trustworthy to within about 4 millimetres, and given that a cricket ball is rather wider than 4mm you ought to treat an about half-ball impact as hitting.
At the very least, if the decision to review leads to an umpire's call it seems harsh to take away a review. If the decision were initially not out and the fielding team reviews and gets an umpire's call, then if the Umpire had agreed with them in the first place the batsman would have been out. So Umpire's calls are double-whammies. Not only do you not get the wicket when you might have, but you lose a review.
It's critical later down the line, as Smith was out plumb a few overs back and not given, with no reviews left. Not sure the technology rules are correct as they stand.
Australia and Smith have survived, anyway, and they have reached 208/3.
At the very least, if the decision to review leads to an umpire's call it seems harsh to take away a review. If the decision were initially not out and the fielding team reviews and gets an umpire's call, then if the Umpire had agreed with them in the first place the batsman would have been out. So Umpire's calls are double-whammies. Not only do you not get the wicket when you might have, but you lose a review.
It's critical later down the line, as Smith was out plumb a few overs back and not given, with no reviews left. Not sure the technology rules are correct as they stand.
Australia and Smith have survived, anyway, and they have reached 208/3.
Ask any cricketer and they'll tell you half a ball is a fine margin and they'll accept the rub of the green. The smith decision is just another example of poor umpiring in this series.
I do agree, though, that you shouldn't lose a review if the ball is hitting. I would also only allow one review per team.
I do agree, though, that you shouldn't lose a review if the ball is hitting. I would also only allow one review per team.
Great captain's innings from Clarke, especially considering the pressure prior to this Test.
As for umpire Tony Hill, that has to one of the worst day's umpiring I've ever seen from an international official.
The only saving grace was Khawaja's 'dismissal' being balanced out by the LBW that Broad should have had that was hitting middle, half way up.
2 absolute shockers.
As for umpire Tony Hill, that has to one of the worst day's umpiring I've ever seen from an international official.
The only saving grace was Khawaja's 'dismissal' being balanced out by the LBW that Broad should have had that was hitting middle, half way up.
2 absolute shockers.
Indeed not jno and frankly I despise the media with all this 5-0 whitewash talk prior to the Test.
Cook straight batted the stupid questions with the 'focused on this game only' line, which they doubtless are.
I'd never write off any side that has Michael Clarke, even though he is head and shoulders above the rest.
Average though some of them are, the wrong coin-toss, a bad decision that galvanizes a side and Clarke has the wherewithall to fire them up.
It ain't over till it's over.
Cook straight batted the stupid questions with the 'focused on this game only' line, which they doubtless are.
I'd never write off any side that has Michael Clarke, even though he is head and shoulders above the rest.
Average though some of them are, the wrong coin-toss, a bad decision that galvanizes a side and Clarke has the wherewithall to fire them up.
It ain't over till it's over.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.